Honestly doesn't sound any different to the women who go from one abusive boyfriend to the next. There's something going on there, and I think it's more than economics.
https://lakesidemilam.com/blog/trauma-stress-repetition-comp...
More like PTSD and the difficulty it can produce dealing with normal situations.
Stockholm Syndrome is something invented on the spot, by someone integral to advising the police violence in question, to leverage misogyny to dismiss criticism of unnecessary police violence endangering hostages in a particular event, that remains a popular idea because media (both news and fictional) likes invoking it.
I'm not sure if you're trying to imply snarkily that because Lena went back to do more pornography shoots that she is lying about her experience and trauma. But just in case that is what you're implying it's worth me pointing out that repitition is a very common consequence of sufferring a trauma. The mental effects of trauma cause a cycle of trauma re-enactment behaviors.
https://lakesidemilam.com/blog/trauma-stress-repetition-comp...
Why should you need to prove that you're doing porn shoots for the right reasons ... and not when buying anything even remotely sharp (which may be used for self-harm), or for private sex acts (so why shouldn't there be limits on buying condoms or lube or ...)?
And yet when we put it in ways that would really make a difference, like requiring when a teacher buys a "barely 18" magazine, the police gets notified. Or, in Europe, when buying or surfing to anything extreme-right (a BIG no-no for anyone in public office in many WW2 participant countries, Germany, France, Belgium, ...). That would be totally unacceptable, and yet would probably protect more people than porn regulations.
And, lastly, porn (and ...) is a way people survive. If you take it away you are taking away people's livelihoods, which will have strong negative consequences for them. Is homelessness better or worse than porn? Because all these "protect women" efforts are a bit like youth care: any careful look at the alternative will make you question if these people have the good of those women at heart.
Just like the solution to drug addiction isn't making drug usage illegal, neither is banning porn.
Porn is a machine that turns drug addicts into money. It's objectively bad as far as I'm concerned.
Consider this[1]: "Belle Delphine is a hugely successful OnlyFans model making $1.2 million a month."
[1] https://www.insider.com/belle-delphine-net-worth-onlyfans-dr...
I guess sudden relative wealth isn't something many of these can handle properly and start doing stupid things.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/porn-s...
The producers know. And swap them out. As long there is somebody else, who can be abused by the same promises.
Did you read TFA that goes in explicit details of the amount of actual work involved in porn?
If you have lots of money, you can have sex with pornstars for money.
Here's an idea - regulate the porn industry so that anyone failing a drug test is cannot work in it, make the tests mandatory.
I did not express an opinion on the legalisation (or not) of any drug at all.
My point is that if performers are performing only due to promise of getting their next fix, then regulating the industry and preventing them from getting hired at all in porn is a good solution. After all, what are the alternatives?
Lots of industries have regulations on drug use (once again, it's irrelevant whether the drug in question is legal or not); why not add the porn industry to that list?
It's one thing to look at a story like this and say "oh, well, porn actresses knowingly make bad choices, I guess they just want the cash" and another to question what drives people to knowingly self-harm for money.
Because certain people (homeless, mentally ill, dealing with substance abuse) will agree to degrading treatment that no regular person would accept. Taking advantage of someone in these sorts of situations is predatory.
But in aggregate, this system creates a huge financial incentive to exploit anyone you can.
I'm all for regulation, if done in a non-puritanical, individual freedom-promoting way. People should be able to choose to be involved in producing porn. No one should feel forced into producing porn.
If we, as a society, aren't willing to ban porn (and I don't think we should), then we have a moral obligation to prevent workplace exploitation in its production via regulation, investigation, and social support resources.
IMHO doing obviously unethical work for money is also degrading and is much more common than porn. It's one thing if someone wants the money and doesn't care, but there are millions of people around the world in e.g. scam call centers that do this kind of work to stay out of the worst of the slums.
"fuck you money" is undefined. I am pretty sure that there are people that do not care about the amount, they care how they are compared to their peers. Just for these people, arguably most people, your solution already fails.
The other simplification is the assertion that degradation is a universal concept and that the threshold is the same. This is extremely difficult to define and i am pretty sure a catholic priest's definition of degradation starts at anything else than marital sex. We can define something more liberal but then we need to take the great step of saying what is acceptable regarding one's sexuality. Seems to me most liberal societies decide to bail that discussion, just deciding that if you did it without coercion it is fine. I also find that position objectionable by the way, as there are work contracts which are by definition illegal(eg, a contract for work of more than 40 hours per week), and i do not see why we could not go further.
All and all, maybe giving these people social security, requirements for mental and physical tests, a subsidy for change of employment, could help lower the chance of unfair and dysfunctional societies. At the same time if someone wants to do, distribute or consume this stuff, then we get the benefit that the chain is legitimate. I think that is really worth it. Sex workers do really important social work.
But agreed that the greater good would be looking at the structural facts that force people into unethical work and addressing those.
Brutal take, but I would argue it's just as valid as the opposite take:
"People who helplessly fell through the cracks become victims of those preying on the weak"
In reality its a mix of both and would come down to arguing over which is more prevelant.
Yes that's generally how jobs work. You need to take them to make money to survive. Porn is not special in this case.
You may argue that the difference is entirely cultural and if our culture were different, sex work would stop being special, but with things being as they are, there's no place on Earth where sex work isn't different from other forms of work.
Heck, just looking at it without considering the actual sex acts and sexual nature of the work, porn is mixing a lot of extremes from other fields of work (emotional labor, selling your physical likeness, intense physical labor, etc) while often involving extremely toxic work environments and abusive business practices. It's "easy money" in terms of money received as a function of time spent, but it's not at all an easy line of work even if you ignore all the social and cultural aspects of it (e.g. risk of losing your home, losing custody, being disowned by your family, difficulty finding romantic partners, risk of being physically, emotionally and sexually abused by people outside work, etc).
>can’t turn down due to other issues
Like what? The difference between soft and hardcore stuff is probably ~10x the payout at the extreme end. So instead of one $3-5K scene and lets go shopping you now have to work every 2-4 days.
so the term i’m dancing around is intersectionality. the opportunities afforded to these folks present them with artificially constrained options, and that constraint is the true issue here, not the porn. do not misrepresent my argument because you assumed i was being an ass, i’m just trying to call it as it is and for us to acknowledge it not change it lol
The contracts porn stars sign are often abusive of themselves.
American prudishness is a nasty force in the world. Sex work needs better regulation, less stigma, and maybe post office style banking isn't such a bad idea, since they couldn't discriminate against people in this arena.
So perhaps, given this dishonesty, we should consider how truthful her statements above may be.
Also, that's not how trauma works. People can't get out of it emotionally and mentally, like people who suffer abuse in other contexts. Also, people need money to survive, and exploitation is sadly not unusual.
Or is mental health generally not protected same as physical health?
In fact, many performers say they do not, and they are taken advantage of. Many say they are lied to. I've read them talk about using safe words, and the men ignorning them and cutting them out of the footage.
Take Lana Rhoades for example, an "outspoken critic of the adult industry" with numerous anal gangbangs and humiliation scenes under her belt:
"One of the worst... honestly, I feel like I'm in denial sometimes and I can't accept some of the things that I've done.
"There was one thing that, ya know, I tried talking to a therapist about before something that I had to do for a scene that was really rough for me.
"Basically, this guy had a bowl and he, like, gagged me until I threw up into it and he, like, pissed in the bowl, and during the scene he asked me to drink it, and I didn't know how to say no.
"It was one of the most disgusting, foul scenes."
It was so traumatic .... Lena decided to go back two more times to do more humiliation scenes with same producer. $$$$